Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 2 de 2
Filter
Add more filters










Database
Language
Publication year range
1.
Acta Medica (Hradec Kralove) ; 58(2): 43-8, 2015.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-26455565

ABSTRACT

The adhesive material used to bond orthodontic brackets to teeth should neither fail during the treatment period, resulting in treatment delays, untoward expenses or patient inconvenience nor should it damage the enamel on debonding at the end of the treatment. Although the effectiveness of a bonding system and any unfavorable effects on the enamel may be studied by conducting in-vivo studies, it is nearly impossible to independently analyze different variables that influence a specific bonding system in the oral environment. In-vitro studies, on the other hand, may utilize more standardized protocols for testing different bonding systems and materials available. Thus, the present review focused attention on in-vitro studies and made an attempt to discuss material-related, teeth-related (fluorotic vs non-fluorotic teeth) and other miscellaneous factors that influences the shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets. Within the limitations of this review, using conventional acid-etch technique, ceramic brackets and bonding to non-fluorotic teeth was reported to have a positive influence on the shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets, but higher shear bond strength found on using ceramic brackets can be dangerous for the enamel.


Subject(s)
Dental Cements/pharmacology , Fluorosis, Dental/complications , Orthodontic Brackets/standards , Shear Strength , Acid Etching, Dental/methods , Dental Enamel/drug effects , Humans , Materials Testing/methods , Surface Properties
2.
Aust Orthod J ; 31(2): 201-7, 2015 Nov.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-26999894

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: The aim of the present study was to assess and compare the shear bond strength (SBS) of metal pre-coated orthodontic brackets bonded to fluorotic and non-fluorotic teeth treated with three different etching techniques. A second aim was to determine the volume of adhesive remaining on the tooth at debond using micro-computed tomography (µCT). METHODS: Ninety extracted premolars were selected to include 45 fluorotic (test group) and 45 non-fluorotic (control group) teeth. Each group was divided into three subgroups of 15 each, which were treated as follows: 1) micro-etched; 2) acid-etched; and 3) both micro-etched and acid-etched. A bonding agent was applied to the prepared surfaces; pre-coated and light-cured brackets were attached to all teeth. An Instron universal testing machine was used to record the debonding force. Specimens were then scanned using a microCT to evaluate the amount of adhesive remaining on the teeth. The significance of the statistical tests was pre-determined at p < 0.05. RESULTS: Two-way ANOVA showed that fluorosis of teeth had no influence on the SBS (p = 0.165) whereas the volume of adhesive remnants was significantly higher in the control group compared with the test group (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Fluorosis had no influence on the SBS of brackets, whereas it had a negative influence on retaining adhesives onto the tooth surfaces.


Subject(s)
Coated Materials, Biocompatible/chemistry , Dental Bonding , Dental Enamel/ultrastructure , Fluorosis, Dental/pathology , Orthodontic Brackets , Acid Etching, Dental/methods , Aluminum Oxide/chemistry , Bicuspid/ultrastructure , Curing Lights, Dental , Dental Alloys/chemistry , Dental Etching/methods , Dental Stress Analysis/instrumentation , Humans , Light-Curing of Dental Adhesives/instrumentation , Phosphoric Acids/chemistry , Resin Cements/chemistry , Shear Strength , Stress, Mechanical , Surface Properties , X-Ray Microtomography/methods
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...